What is the meaning of Grace, according to the Bible?

[bro.tan]

In the time of the Law of Moses, the Prophets spoke only in the context of that Law, knowing that depreciating it in any way would only cause people to rationalize it away and no longer fully observe it. As long as the Law was in effect, it was the job of the Prophets, and indeed the Messiah, to protect and preserve it.

This has nothing to do with the fact the Law, as a Covenant, would be fully broken in the time of Messiah, necessitating that a new Law come forth, centered on the Messiah himself, and not on Moses. This New Covenant did not condemn either Israel or the human race. Rather, if enacted it relied on grace and initiated a righteousness that was no longer condemned as flawed and temporary.

Stating that murder is equally anger, and adultery equally lust and covetousness, is not an enlargement of the Law. It was the Law from the start, applied in various contexts.

What was new about the New Covenant was the fact that Law no longer suppressed men and kept them under condemnation, falling short of Eternal LIfe. The New Covenant, by contrast, forgave sin and enabled men to continue to walk with God despite their sin and actually obtain the promise of Eternal Life.

This new way made the condemnatory rituals of the Law no longer necessary, to prevent human from entering eternal life. The promise of a resurrection made such rituals unnecessary and no longer applicable.

Why are you arguing this? It is true without an aspect of the OT Covenant of Law!

Jesus did not have to follow the Law of Moses at all! He was perfect and had no need to give offerings for his sin. He had no need to be given commandments to be righteous since he was God in the flesh--perfect righteousness before God.

So, we follow him, and not a Law that kept us out of heaven, or only in a temporary relationship with God. In following Jesus we find his grace, which surpasses the Law and gives us a righteousness that never ends.

I've already explained this. Jesus taught the Law while the era of Law was still in force. Every requirement of the Law was still being required by Messiah.

But Jesus was saying that he would fulfill it. He had not yet fulfilled it. He had come to fulfill it.

And when did he fulfill it? He fulfilled it on the cross, and in his resurrection. That's where an eternal covenant was made with God's People. The Law, by contrast, condemned Man and only provided a temporary means of relationship between God and Israel.

What Jesus was saying was that the testimony of the Law against human sin was eternal, up until the point where he would fulfill the Law. Until the end of this present universe, sinful man would have to die, as testified to by the Law. But Jesus would fulfill the Law not by just keeping the Law, but rather, by completing its purpose in a resurrection freely given to God's People.

You are repeating the same arguments. Jesus' fulfillment of the Law was not the fulfillment of all prophecies. Rather, it was the fulfillment of a specific set of prophecies that had to do with God's covenant with His People.

 

[bro.tan]

In the time of the Law of Moses, the Prophets spoke only in the context of that Law, knowing that depreciating it in any way would only cause people to rationalize it away and no longer fully observe it. As long as the Law was in effect, it was the job of the Prophets, and indeed the Messiah, to protect and preserve it.

This has nothing to do with the fact the Law, as a Covenant, would be fully broken in the time of Messiah, necessitating that a new Law come forth, centered on the Messiah himself, and not on Moses. This New Covenant did not condemn either Israel or the human race. Rather, if enacted it relied on grace and initiated a righteousness that was no longer condemned as flawed and temporary.

Stating that murder is equally anger, and adultery equally lust and covetousness, is not an enlargement of the Law. It was the Law from the start, applied in various contexts.

What was new about the New Covenant was the fact that Law no longer suppressed men and kept them under condemnation, falling short of Eternal LIfe. The New Covenant, by contrast, forgave sin and enabled men to continue to walk with God despite their sin and actually obtain the promise of Eternal Life.

This new way made the condemnatory rituals of the Law no longer necessary, to prevent human from entering eternal life. The promise of a resurrection made such rituals unnecessary and no longer applicable.

Why are you arguing this? It is true without an aspect of the OT Covenant of Law!

Jesus did not have to follow the Law of Moses at all! He was perfect and had no need to give offerings for his sin. He had no need to be given commandments to be righteous since he was God in the flesh--perfect righteousness before God.

So, we follow him, and not a Law that kept us out of heaven, or only in a temporary relationship with God. In following Jesus we find his grace, which surpasses the Law and gives us a righteousness that never ends.

I've already explained this. Jesus taught the Law while the era of Law was still in force. Every requirement of the Law was still being required by Messiah.

But Jesus was saying that he would fulfill it. He had not yet fulfilled it. He had come to fulfill it.

And when did he fulfill it? He fulfilled it on the cross, and in his resurrection. That's where an eternal covenant was made with God's People. The Law, by contrast, condemned Man and only provided a temporary means of relationship between God and Israel.

What Jesus was saying was that the testimony of the Law against human sin was eternal, up until the point where he would fulfill the Law. Until the end of this present universe, sinful man would have to die, as testified to by the Law. But Jesus would fulfill the Law not by just keeping the Law, but rather, by completing its purpose in a resurrection freely given to God's People.

You are repeating the same arguments. Jesus' fulfillment of the Law was not the fulfillment of all prophecies. Rather, it was the fulfillment of a specific set of prophecies that had to do with God's covenant with His People.

As I read through your reply, it's as if you don’t read the Bible at all, and it makes me wonder if you really took the time and understood all the scriptures and verses that I post, because that would have given you the understanding and a better reply. Not one verse or scripture was post by you to give any understanding of your thoughts of process. So now, with Scriptures and verses, explain to me the new covenant, and the different from the old covenant. Again....post out scriptures and verses.

 

[Randy Kluth]

As I read through your reply, it's as if you don’t read the Bible at all, and it makes me wonder if you really took the time and understood all the scriptures and verses that I post, because that would have given you the understanding and a better reply. Not one verse or scripture was post by you to give any understanding of your thoughts of process. So now, with Scriptures and verses, explain to me the new covenant, and the different from the old covenant. Again....post out scriptures and verses.

1) Jesus spoke during his earthly ministry in the context of the Law. It was still functioning as such. And the purpose of the Law was to frustrate Man in his present condition to make him hope in new circumstances, in a new covenant.

2) The terms of the Old Covenant represented the death of Man, as indicated in the Garden. Once Man had eaten of the Forbidden Tree, his destiny was death. And this sentence lasts as long as the current universe stands. All men must die.

3) The terms of the New Covenant fulfilled the Old Covenant by certifying that all men must die. Jesus certified that by dying himself--for us and not for himself. And in so doing, he fulfilled the Law also by redirecting Israel's hope towards his resurrection.

Though the curse lasts as long as the universe, the New Covenant was fulfilled in the death and resurrection of Christ. And those who take hold of him, by faith, come under terms of the New Covenant. Though we still must die, we have come out of the curse of eternal separation from God to enjoy his grace and the hope in the resurrection.

Matt 5.17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. 20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven."

Your focus has been on the righteousness of the Law. And that also was Jesus' focus at that time. But the indication is that Israel, represented by the Pharisees, had made a mockery of the righteousness of the Law by hypocritically presenting righteousness as a litrugical, external framework, as opposed to an internal reality. This indicated, as Jesus said elsewhere, that the Temple Law was about to fail. The Temple itself was about to come down.

What remained was Jesus' promise that after 3 days he, as a different kind of Temple, would rise up. And true righteousness would reside in those who choose to follow him, accepting the grace indicated in his sacrificial atonement.

The bottom line is that the passage you rely on does not work these things out theologically--they are still Old Testament. But put together with what Jesus said would happen, regarding his death and resurrection, and put together with what Paul did to explain these things, we know that righteousness was real under the Old Covenant, but failed in Israel. This placed the world's hope not in the Law of Moses, but rather, in Jesus, whose death and resurrection can give us both righteousness and Eternal Life.

If you don't understand these things, you're probably not a Born Again Christian.

 

[Randy Kluth]

My goodness Randy Kluth
I was using murder as an extreme example.
Do YOU know anyone that kills a few people every month?

I know. I'm showing you that in order to prove your point you had to use an extreme example.

Someone on YouTube, I will not be offering to give him any publicity here....
actually stated that a believer could kill a few persons every month and still be saved.

I appreciate your last sentence and for agreeing with the bible.
What we think matters not...
all that matters is what the NT teaches...
and it teaches that salvation can be forfeited.

I've got plenty of scripture if you'd like to see it...
but must close down now....

I'm interested in any sincere conversation. You're welcome to share as you will...

 

[PeterAndroz]

Okay, talk to someone else.

My pleasure